From R-KIDS of MN and GPF

Contents 1 Child Support Guidelines Challenge Lawsuit 2 SF 1364 "Shared Parental Responsibilities Legislation" 3 Case Law Review 3.1 Court upholds Father’s Registry Act 4 Court Of Appeals 4.1 Unpublished 4.1.1 In re the Marriage of: Gass vs. Gass, C3-01-539 4.1.2 In re the Marriage of: Macemon vs. Ludowese, C9-01-545 4.1.3 Norling vs.Weldon, C5-01-798 4.1.4 In the matter of the Custody of: N.A.K, C3-01-170, C6-01-678 4.1.5 In re the Marriage of: Soderbeck vs. Olsen, C4-01-985 4.1.6 In Re the Marriage of: Smith vs. Smith, C8-01-648 4.1.7 Jean Ann Geske, f/k/a Jean Ann Marcolina vs. Jeffrey Alan Marcolina, C5-01-820 4.1.8 In re the Marriage of Steven Ronald Kohls vs. Janice Kathryn Kohls, C3-01-847 4.1.9 Gander vs. Koebke Barsic, C1-01-510 5 Schedule for R-Kids Group Meetings 6 Reader Mail 7 Billionaire’s ex-wife wants $320,000 a month in child support 8 Suicide Teen Pilot was kept from Dad 9 Internet Visitation 10 The Family Values War 11 Fragile Families, Welfare Reform, and Marriage 12 ABOUT R-KIDS OF MINNESOTA 12.1 R-KIDS CONCERNS AND ISSUES 12.2 Give to RKIDS Charitable Fund

Child Support Guidelines Challenge Lawsuit

R-Kids has shown that Minnesota Child Support Guidelines are not constitutional. We need to get into court. Please help us! Contributions are tax deductible.

Thank you most graciously for your contributions on our previous two requests. Many of you who have sent money are trying to get a better future for your children. Others, whose children’s lives have already been trashed by the child support system, will contribute because we wish other children will not be destroyed. Our children were hurt because they did not have the same standard of living, during visitation, as they had when with the custodial parent. Children need the influence of both parents. Rather than complain we are trying to make a positive change.

Our Attorneys and our Economist are eagerly waiting for funding to continue this challenge. They have been continuously donating their time to provide information for the effort. We are very fortunate to be working these people. In our lifetime, this is the first opportunity for a legal challenge and the "window" may not reoccur. So far, your assistance has allowed us to pay for the legal research and the economic report with a few dollars left over. We thank you for your heads-up help and care.

To continue the effort, we need to provide resources for at least five days in court for the attorney and for the economist. That will allow for an appeal, which we expect. We need to raise enough of that amount immediately, so the attorneys and the economist will be encouraged to continue with the effort. They are our lifelines!

Economist R. Mark Rogers has presented his report, dated October 22, 2001. His analysis shows that child support payments can be cut in half when the tax benefit is included and both parents’ income is considered. It is available in WORD format on http://tcfreenet.org/org/r-kids/markrogers/Rogers011022.doc. See Graham’s report on http://www.economic-indicators.com/CSXMNGraham.html. Mark Roger’s report to the Georgia legislature is also an interesting, well documented article. Please read or call.

ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/pub/users/rmrogers/rogers06june01.pdf

Contributions are tax deductible under tax code 501( c )(3). Your receipt is your cancelled check. Receipts are given for cash donations. Make contributions payable to R-Kids CSGC. Mail to R-Kids, Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424-0658. Thank you!

SF 1364 "Shared Parental Responsibilities Legislation"

R-KIDS of Minnesota has reviewed SF1364 and concludes that it does nothing to encourage and support the need for a child to have two involved parents. It in fact does just the opposite by promoting the transfer of child-support without consideration for the "Real Cost" of raising children in both households.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) contends that most parents evade the financial responsibilities of their children. Parents can and will provide for their children if the system is fair and the courts apply the laws as intended.

R-Kids supports what is called a "Cost Shares Model". This model focuses on what is actually spent on the children and it requires both parents to contribute based on their income.

DHS supports what is called an "Income Shares Model". This model is based on what is available to be spent on the children and is weighted in favor of the obligee. SF1364, an "Income Shares Model", includes child-support formulas/charts, which would drastically increase child-support payments for non-custodial parents. The changes proposed by DHS would calculate child-support using gross income instead of net income. There is a false assumption that all or most of the children's needs/expenses are incurred in the obligee's home. The changes, as is the case now, still do not take into account that both parents incur basic/necessary expenses for their children. Expenses such as housing, transportation, medical, food, clothes and a variety of other expenses that are incurred in both homes

THE HISTORY:

Minnesota’s current guidelines were first established in 1983. At that time, and to this day, they do not represent any economic basis whatsoever. The 1983 guidelines were exclusively intended as a way to reimburse the welfare system for services provided to custodial parents. The foundation, which these guidelines were based on, was never intended to be used for the determination of child-support for non-welfare cases. In a report titled: "Why Minnesota’s Child-support Guidelines is Unconstitutional" (www.r-kids.org). DHS openly admits that there are no known studies, which accompanied the 1983 enactment" (page 8). The result has been excessive child-support obligations for the middle-and-higher income obligors.

Minnesota is part of a multi-billion dollar custody/child-support/divorce industry, and our children are used as ransom for financial incentives. It is money, not the Needs of Children, which has been the focus of Minnesota Laws. It is the access to both parents, which is in the Best Interest of Children. According to Sociology Professor David Popenoe of Rutgers University, "if present trends continue, the percentage of American children living apart from their biological fathers will reach 50% early in the next century".

Children want and need two parents in their lives. Research after research study shows that children who grow up without two parents involved in their lives are at higher risk for social pathologies such as teen pregnancies, criminality, drug use, and suicide. Despite these alarming statistics, an ever-increasing number of good responsible parents are systematically denied simple parental rights in family court system. Why? Because the multi-billion dollar custody/child-support/divorce industry supported by DHS, is focused on money, not families.

THE PROBLEM:

The problem with both current and proposed child-support laws is that it puts an unreasonable financial burden on one parent.

Non-Custodial parents with extensive parenting time pay the same as parent with no parenting time.

There is no accountability for whether or not "child-support" is actually spent on children. The obligor pays all the taxes, obligee gets all the tax benefits, and this hidden benefit and accounts for thousands of dollars over the course of a year. The proposed legislation doesn’t even address the issue of the presumption of joint custody. Nor does it promote/allow the involvement of both parents. The Minnesota DHS proposes to continue to impute income on the obligor, but wants judges to decide whether or not to impute income on the obligee. This means obligors will continue to loose their licenses and/or go to jail. But says nothing about the equal shared responsibilities of the obligee. DHS knowingly and deliberately involves themselves in the private lives of good citizens every day causing conflict instead of resolving the problem. THE SOLUTION:

Mandatory shared parenting, or parenting plans. Mandatory Education and mediation services provided by the county for all separating couples with conflicts. Judges would only need to decide issues the parents couldn’t agree upon. The child-support guideline would be a "cost-sharing" model not an income-sharing model. . Children need laws that enforce parenting time. If one parent won’t cooperate, they should be held in contempt of court, with real penalties. And DHS should provide this funding. All Judges and Referees must have mandatory family law education prior to issuing court orders. Unlike current practice. Child-support guidelines need to be based on the actual costs of raising the children. Similar to the same standards established by DHS for the support of a child in Foster Care In conclusion, R-KIDS of Minnesota believes there is a great benefit to children if we were to remove the financial incentives inherent in the current system. R-KIDS of Minnesota also believes that a large portion of post divorce problems would be eliminated not to mention the biggest benefit and that is fewer parents would end a relation.

The national Organizations of the Children’s Rights Council (www.gocrc.org) and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (www.acfc.org) support R-Kids and the "Cost Shares" Model. Additional information on their web-sites includes additional research, solid research, which show the flaws in the "Income Shares" model.

Your involvement with R-KIDS of Minnesota is very important. R-KIDS of Minnesota is working with an Economist and Attorney to write legislation for Minnesota families and want to encourage all of you to involve yourself with our efforts. Throughout the next few months, we will be working to ensure that parents, good parents like your self, are not taken advantage of by legislators and DHS. Over the next few months we will make you aware of other public hearings, how to contact your legislators and raise awareness of these topics to your friends and co-workers.

DHS has failed to distribute their child-support work sheet so people can see for themselves how the proposed changes will affect their lives. You can call them to obtain a copy at (651) 215-1714 or view it online at: www.dhs.state.mn.us/ecs/reports/csgdline.pdf

On Wednesday, December 5th, 2001, the Judiciary Subcommittee of Family Law held public hearings to review the Minnesota Child-Support guidelines. These hearings were held in response to two bills introduced in the year 2001 legislative session. The bills, SF1960 and SF1364, introduced the concept of shared incomes. In short, the shared income model gives some relief to lower income obligors but increases the amount of child support for most people paying child-support.

Prior to the Wednesday hearing, R-Kids of Minnesota held a press conference to raise the awareness of child-support laws and guidelines to the general public. Reporters from WCCO-TV, KSTP-TV, FOX-TV, the Star Tribune, Associated Press and the White Bear Press were in attendance. Molly Olson, Barbara Starr, Diane Anderson and Barbara Wake spoke for about 45 minutes and expressed to the reporters that both the current and proposed child-support laws are flawed because the laws ignore shared parenting time and the income of both parents. These four women did a fantastic job. Please go out of your way to say thank-you.

Approximately 20-30 people out of over 100 people who requested to speak told the legislators how destructive the current laws and guidelines are to families. There was absolutely no way that the legislators or The Minnesota Department of Human Services can, with good conscience, refuse to act on reform based on these testimonies. Of course it will remain to be seen if they act on conscience or bureaucratic ideology.

One important testimony, given by a mother who did not receive any child-support stood at the podium telling the committee that she did in fact have difficulty raising her child because of lack of financial support from the father. What is important about this story is that I'm sure she spoke thinking that she was in a room full of adversarial fathers? Several of us talked to her and supported her concerns and reassured her that we were not there to deny financial support to children. I'm trust that she left knowing she was amongst friends who would go out of their way to tell this true "deadbeat" to do something to support his child. Although most of us are upset with how unfair the system is to us (and it is), we need to also support and be outspoken on what we should be doing to ensure that "true dead-beats" provide for their children.

At this time Sen Foley has no more hearings schedule, but it is likely that some time in January. Sen Kiscaden will hold family law hearings in her district. R-Kids of Minnesota will stay in touch and communicate additional hearing dates when they are known.

Finally, the 100+ people who wanted to testify sends the message of how important this issue is to families. It would be great if we had 200-300 people next time. Next time we want to be prepared with specific questions to legislators and DHS. Sen. Foley on several occasions chose to ignore our requests for answers by saying they needed to have time to prepare a response to our questions. Next time we will give the questions to them a couple weeks in advance and see if they will answer.

A special thanks to those that helped out! And to those Children's Organizations that spoke in support of SF1364: Please open your eyes and see the effects on children and families this type of legislation could have!

Case Law Review

Court upholds Father’s Registry Act

C0-01-739

Heidbreder vs. Carton

December 13, 2001

Affirmed

Adoption

Appellant and respondent are the unmarried biological parents of a child. Respondent informed appellant of the pregnancy soon after conception. During her pregnancy, respondent moved several times to locations in three different states. For a one-month period, appellant and respondent lived together. Respondent gave birth to the child in Minnesota and two days after birth the child was discharged to the custody of her adoptive parents. Thirty-one days after the birth of the child, the appellant learned of the birth and that the child may possibly have been adopted in Minnesota. Appellant postmarked the Minnesota adoption registry forms that day.

The appellant commenced a paternity action. Respondent and the adoptive parents moved to dismiss the action because no putative father had timely registered. The district court dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected the appellant’s claim that he was entitled to notice of the adoption petition under Minn. Stat. § 259.49, subd. 1 (4) (2000) because he was "openly lived with" the mother. The Court held that the adoption-notice statute’s use of the present tense, "is living openly with," refers to the individual residing with the child or mother after the child’s birth.

The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that he timely registered. Registration was required within 30 days. The district court held and the Court of Appeals affirmed that it was possible for the appellant to file in the 30-day period and he did not fall within the statutory exception.

The Court refused to recognize a fraud exception to the registration requirement finding no support for such an exception in the statute of the policy behind the statute.

Finally, the Court rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the Adoption Registry.

Court Of Appeals

Unpublished

In re the Marriage of: Gass vs. Gass, C3-01-539

December 6, 2001
Reversed and remanded; motion denied
Child Support

The parties stipulated to joint legal custody, child support obligation, and other provisions. Because of appellant's then extremely high income, the child support agreement did not apply the Hortis/Valento formula. The district court approved the parties' agreement, ordered joint physical custody, and entered judgment. Appellant’s position was terminated one day after the agreement was read into the district court record, but before the drafting of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court did not alter the stipulation but included in the judgment the obligor’s right to request a de novo review of the level of child support no less than six months after entry of the judgment.

After six months, appellant requested review, and the court made a downward modification in the amount of child support. Appellant alleges that the district court: (a) failed to make adequate findings under Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c); (b) failed to account for the parties' stipulation allowing de novo review of appellant's support obligation due to his job loss; and (c) improperly used child support to equalize the income of the parties.

The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s argument that the de novo review required application of the Hortis/Valento formula. The Court stated:

Now that appellant's income has been reduced drastically, and some modification is called for, the equitable theory behind Hortis/Valento is simply one of several factors that the district court can look at when recalculating fair and reasonable child support based on appellant's drastic decrease in income.

The Court concluded that the district court erred when it stated that respondent did not need to give up the benefit of the bargain from the original agreement. When trying to arrive at an equitable modification, the district court could consider the original agreement only as one of the factors. The district court also erred when it used child support to "equalize" the parties’ income.

The Court remanded for findings under Minn. Stat. §. 518.551, subd. 5(c).

The Court also rejected respondent’s request for attorney’s fees.

In re the Marriage of: Macemon vs. Ludowese, C9-01-545

Affirmed
Child Support

Respondent received sole physical custody of the parties’ two minor children, and appellant was ordered to pay $300 per month in child support. At a later hearing, respondent moved for a modification of child support, and the district court increased the obligation to $1,000 a month. In a prior appeal, appellant had challenged the increase and the case was remanded for insufficient findings regarding appellant’s net monthly income.

On remand, the magistrate found that appellant’s tax returns did not accurately reflect his earnings and that "[w]hether the depreciation claimed on the tax returns is true depreciation or numbers for tax purposes only is highly speculative." The magistrate determined appellant’s income for child-support purposes by relying on information, compiled by a bank, regarding his loan-repayment capacity and by considering the increase in his net worth during the preceding three years.

On this appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s claim that the district court erred in failing to consider the claimed depreciation. The district court had considered the depreciation but rejected it as "speculative."

The Court also rejected a challenge to the district court’s findings, stating that the magistrate was not required to make the written findings that are required when deviating from the guidelines, because the ordered support was within the guidelines when the imputed income was considered. The magistrate’s findings were sufficient to order a modification.

Finally, the Court noted the district court was justified in imputing income to appellant without making a specific finding that he had self-limited his income. Because the obligor was self-employed and it was difficult to determine his actual income, the district court could use his earning capacity as a basis of determining income, without a specific finding that he had self limited his income.

Norling vs.Weldon, C5-01-798

Affirmed
Child Support

Respondent was awarded sole physical custody and both parties were awarded joint legal custody of their minor son. Appellant was ordered to pay child support and childcare support. There were subsequent motions regarding child support and visitation.

This appeal involve appellant’s claims that the child support magistrate failed to apply the Hortis/Valento formula to determine his child support obligation and erred by not finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances that should have led to a reduction in his child support obligation.

The Court of Appeals held that "… because appellant has not rebutted the presumption that respondent is not an obligor for child support purposes and because the child support magistrate did not make specific findings that a deviation from the guidelines is appropriate, we conclude that the Hortis/Valento formula should not apply in determining appellant’s child support obligation."

On the issue of a change in circumstances, the Court of Appeals dismissed appellant’s argument that he had incurred a decrease in income, noting that he did not submit current and sufficient documentation at the hearing to substantiate his claim. Appellant also failed to prove an increase in parenting time as a change in circumstance.

In the matter of the Custody of: N.A.K, C3-01-170, C6-01-678

December 13, 2001
Affirmed

Appellant’s marriage was dissolved and sole physical custody of the child was awarded to the mother. After an illness, the mother died. During the illness, the child’s care was provided by the respondents and others but not by the appellant. After the funeral, the appellant attempted to take custody of the child. The respondents initiated child-custody proceedings under Chapter 518 of Minnesota Statutes by filing an emergency motion for temporary third-party custody. After the hearing, the district court granted respondents temporary sole legal and physical custody of the child.

After a custody trial was held the district court awarded permanent sole physical and legal custody of N.A.K. to respondents. Appellant moved for amended findings, a new trial, or reopening of the dissolution decree, arguing, for the first time, that the district court’s award of custody to respondents violated his fundamental right to raise his child. The district court denied the motion on procedural grounds.

Appellant appealed the custody award, the constitutionality of the best-interest-of-the-child statute, and a related award of attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting that the findings were supported by the record. The Court upheld the award of attorney’s fees based upon the conduct of the appellant, and refused to consider the constitutional argument.

In re the Marriage of: Soderbeck vs. Olsen, C4-01-985

December 20, 2001
Affirmed
Tax

Citing the part of the 1990 judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage that entitles him to tax-dependency exemptions if, among other things, he was current on his support obligation and had specified amounts of annual income, father moved the court to have mother held in contempt for not executing the forms necessary for father to claim tax dependency exemptions for 1998 and 2000. In March 2001, the district court ruled father was "sufficiently current" in his support obligation to be entitled to the exemptions. After an April 2001 order denied mother’s motion for amended findings, mother appeals.

The Court dismissed appellant’s claims that the appeal was moot, or not from a final or reviewable order.

The Court dismissed a challenge to the district court’s findings that the father was current in his support obligations. The Court discounted the evidence presented in the form of a memorandum by a unsworn employee of the county.

The Court also rejected a challenge to the district court’s adoption of a finding of income from a prior order.

In Re the Marriage of: Smith vs. Smith, C8-01-648

Affirmed
Custody

Both parties sought sole custody and the court ordered a social services custody evaluation and appointed a guardian ad litem. The court also ordered a psychological evaluation of appellant. The court held that it would be in the child’s best interests to be placed with respondent.

On appeal, the appellant claimed that the guardian ad litem exceeded her authority as granted by the district court and Rules 904.04 and 908.02. The district court originally appointed the guardian to make a preliminary investigation regarding visitation. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument stating that the activities of the guardian were well within the traditional and statutory scope. The Court stated:

We also note that rule 904.04 is advisory in its nature and contains nothing suggesting an intention to limit the traditional and statutory role of a guardian ad litem in this type of case. Nor does rule 908.02 preclude a guardian from unilaterally choosing to investigate all the circumstances of a case and reporting to the court. Moreover, the statute permits—if not requires—a guardian to complete a best-interests investigation and report, and the trial court has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence. And as the trial court pointed out, county social services furnished an official evaluation.

Jean Ann Geske, f/k/a Jean Ann Marcolina vs. Jeffrey Alan Marcolina, C5-01-820

Filed December 18, 2001
Affirmed

Appellant-father challenged the district court’s order restricting him from attending his children’s parent-teacher conferences.

Appellant contended that the district court abused its discretion because it based its decision on the fact that appellant did not have legal custody and therefore was not entitled to attend parent-teacher conferences. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that "currently, the law 'leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the trial court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.' " quoting Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 477 (Minn. App. 2000). The Court of Appeals held that the district court had "merely noted the statutory definition of legal custody, and then went on to properly base its decision on the best interests of the children."

Appellant also claimed the district court had insufficient evidence to support its determination that his attendance at parent-teacher conferences was not in the children’s best interests. The Court of Appeals noted that the district court had reviewed 14 letters sent between appellant and school personnel, as well as a memorandum from the school principal, all of which indicated a strained relationship between appellant and the school. Because the district court was in the best position to determine how appellant’s behavior negatively affected his children, it did not abuse its discretion in restricting appellant from school conferences.

In re the Marriage of Steven Ronald Kohls vs. Janice Kathryn Kohls, C3-01-847

Filed December 18, 2001
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Appellant-father challenged the district court’s order granting a change in custody of his minor children to the children’s maternal grandparents (intervenors) and awarding attorney fees to intervenors and respondent.

Appellant first argued that the facts did not support the district court’s finding of endangerment, and thus no change in circumstance had occurred to permit a change in custody. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting the "ample evidence of endangerment" to the children’s emotional health and development. (For example, appellant consistently denied respondent visitation; appellant and his wife degraded the children’s mother in the children’s presence and took the children to the doctor before and after visitation with the mother, indicating to the children that they were not safe with her; appellant’s wife told the child's teacher to humiliate him in order to encourage better behavior; and appellant and his wife sent the child to school several days in a row with pants smelling of urine.) Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding endangerment.

Appellant next argued that the facts did not support a finding that a custody change was necessary to serve the best interests of the children. The district court, however, had made extensive findings regarding each of the 13 statutory factors, and 18 witnesses testified at the seven-day trial. Both the guardian ad litem and the court services officer recommended that the court award sole legal and physical custody to intervenors. Because the record supported the district court’s best-interests findings, the Court of Appeals concluded the district court had not abused its discretion.

Appellant next argued that that intervenors failed to establish "grave and weighty" reasons needed to overcome the presumption that he was entitled to custody, and that the facts did not establish him as an unfit parent. But the Court of Appeals noted that the presumption is subordinate to the best interests of the child and a court need not find a parent unfit in order to award custody to a third party. Moreover, the intervenors were the children’s maternal grandparents, with whom the children had lived for several months. Because the record as a whole supported its findings, the district court had not abused its discretion in awarding sole custody to intervenors.

Gander vs. Koebke Barsic, C1-01-510

January 9, 2002
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded

Parties were divorced in 1989, after 11 years of marriage. The stipulated dissolution decree awarded appellant physical custody of the parties’ four minor children and required that respondent pay child support. In 1992, the district court granted respondent sole physical custody of one of the children

One of the children with appellant suffered an injury. The appellant moved for (1) increased child support based on respondent’s increased income; (2) increased monthly support to defray the increased cost of caring for the child’s special needs arising from his injury; and (3) attorney fees.

The district court ordered an increase in respondent’s child support, ordered respondent to pay an extra $200 in monthly child support for the injured child, and awarded appellant attorney fees

Respondent appealed the support order, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the retroactive child support modification, the extra support, and the attorney fees. The Court reversed the district court and remanded for statutorily required fact-finding to determine whether respondent’s support obligation should be offset by the support due from appellant for the one child in respondent's custody.

On remand, the district court ordered that appellant pay respondent retroactive support for the child in respondent’s custody, and imputed income to appellant. The court also eliminated respondent’s additional monthly obligation for the injured child, ended respondent’s obligation to support one of the children upon his graduation from high school, and granted appellant attorney fees.

Respondent moved to modify custody of one of the children residing with appellant. The district court granted respondent temporary custody pending a full evidentiary hearing and appointed a guardian ad litem. On January 22, 2001, following a seven-day evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the parties joint physical custody of the child and ordered the parties to share the cost of the guardian ad litem.

Appellant first challenged the retroactive child support award for the one child in respondent’s custody. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order, noting that the findings of the district court that the appellant was unable to meet her monthly expenses during the period of the retroactive increase supported a deviation from the guidelines.

The Court of Appeals supported a finding of the district court that imputed part-time income to appellant, and the district court’s elimination of the additional support previously ordered for the injured child.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order that would have eliminated respondent’s obligation to pay support for one of the children upon graduation from high school. The Court stated that the statute required continued support until the latter of either graduation or reaching age 18.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order splitting the costs associated with the guardian ad litem. The Court rejected appellant’s arguments that her income was below the poverty guidelines, noting that the definition of "income" included imputed income and when adjusted for the imputed income, appellant’s income was above the poverty guidelines.

On the question of custody of one of the children, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decisions regarding the temporary custody modification, which changed custody of one child from appellant to respondent. The preference of the 14-year-old to change residence was relevant to three of the four custody-modification factors. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of joint physical custody. After reviewing the preference of the child and the inability of the parties to cooperate, the Court concluded:

Thus, on this singularly gloomy and cheerless record, not only is joint physical custody unavailable, but appellant cannot be awarded custody of E.G. As a result, this court is put in the bizarre position of either remanding for findings of fact regarding the propriety of awarding custody to respondent when (because each of the other custodial options has been foreclosed), those findings would serve no purpose, or of directing that custody be awarded to respondent. We are exceptionally uncomfortable with the idea of directing a custody award as a matter of law. Cf. Wopata, 498 N.W.2d at 483 (noting that there, a custody award on appeal would be an unacceptable excursion into fact finding or an inappropriate expansion of the proper standard of review). We are even more uncomfortable, however, with extending this proceeding by remanding for additional findings that will not only not alter the result, but will give these parties yet another opportunity to engage in expensive, pointless, and unnecessary custody litigation. We therefore remand for the district court to grant respondent sole physical custody of E.G., establish a reasonable visitation schedule for appellant, and determine what support, if any, appellant shall provide for E.G.

Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision to order a smaller-than-requested award of attorney fees for appellant, and a denial of fees for respondent.

Schedule for R-Kids Group Meetings

Special meeting: Saturday, January 19, 10:00 AM,

VFW Club, 4496 Lake Ave South, White Bear Lake

Regular meetings at Ridgedale-Hennepin Area Library, 12601 Ridgedale Drive, Minnetonka.

Thursday, January 31, 7:00 PM, Thursday, February 28, 7:00 PM,

Thursday, March 28, 7:00 PM, Thursday, April 25, 7:00 PM,

Thursday, May 16, 7:00 PM,

Other meetings may be scheduled. We will keep you informed. At our last meeting, members expressed a desire to meet twice per month during the legislative session.

Reader Mail

Our story

Dear R-KIDS:

On Dec. 1999, my husband's ex-wife demanded an increase on child support only after 8 months of the previous increase she demanded. My husband did some "in-home" calculations and concluded that by law, we did owe her an increase of nearly $300 per month so we offered her $1100 per month. She wanted more and we had no choice but wait until the court summoned us in. We had a court hearing in April 2000 and even though my husband's calculations were wrong in her favor, when the judge heard the initial offer we made (and she refused) he ordered that amount to stand. Thank God he didn't side with her demand of $1400 per month, but the actual amount due to the children was in the mid 900's. Still $1,100 is a lot of money especially since we were getting ready for the birth of our first child together.

My husband's children from his previous marriage are ages 13 and 17. Since we were getting ready for court and paying lawyer fees we had to tell the children we couldn't go bowling every time they came over or go out to eat as often as we used to because we were short on money. We were even considering selling our home and moving into an apartment. She used this against us in her affidavit to court telling the judge that we told the kids "we can't afford to entertain you because your mom is taking all our money away" but sadly, this was the truth. Aside of granting her support over the guidelines, the judge ordered us to contribute $1000 for a vehicle for his then soon-to-be 16 year old.

We had petitioned the judge to have the custodial parent meet us half way on visitation weekends since the round trip to their home was nearly a 3 hour drive and she never met us half way. The custodial parent claimed that she did all the driving of the children during the week, therefore, she did not feel it was fair to have her drive half way when dad was the one that wanted to see the kids. She told my husband "if you want to see them, then you pick them off and drop them off". As a quick and short remedy the judge opted with the custodial parent's request to help pay for a car for the soon-to-be 16yr old. Needless to say, we hardly ever see the children anymore. The vehicle we helped buy and for which we were ordered to pay insurance on, is now used to party with friends instead of visiting dad. Since it's the 17 yr. old that drives, the 13 yr. old depends on her coming over to visit dad for him to come over. We've had to pick him up and drop him off at times because his sister just doesn't have time to drive him over.

And yet another sad side of this story, since the 16yr. old got her own car, she's been failing school. Right now she's 100hrs. behind in school and she's supposed to graduate in June of 2002. Her first report card already shows signs that she won't graduate and God knows if her mother "the custodial parent" is forcing her attend night school. Her main concern when my husband met with the school counselor and his daughter was that it was too bad her daughter wasn't going to get to have FUN her senior year because she had to attend night school. My husband's encouragement does not help because she needs discipline and the custodial parent won't allow dad to discipline his own children. Bottom line, all she wants from him is the child support check she gets monthly not him being a father.

It's terribly depressing because I want to give up too. I've been the pusher and supporter that "we must not give up on the kids, because they're only kids" when my husband wants to give up, but I'm at the end of my rope too. It would be so much easier to give up.

Martha Crislip mcrislip@iti-med.com

Dear Members of the Democratic Party:

The following are views from a 38 year old father and a supporter of the DFL for 20 years. My family has resided in Vadnais Heights, MN. For 50 years and has always promoted the DFL party and voted as such.

I have supported DFL because of their support for working families and their children. Basically keeping the middle class citizens in existence.

What I am seeing, living and hearing from my union brothers and sisters, is they are tired of working to support their families to only have you folks tax them to death to support more government "pork" programs for individuals that choose not to work. Our own families are struggling with the high cost of living.

One example of the wrong direction of the DFL party, as it pertains to Minnesota family law.

Basically we have family laws that focus on federal incentive dollars coming back to the state. Our laws/policies do not focus on the fact children need emotional, financial and moral support of all family members. I have been lobbying for years for family law reform and I know many DFL legislators are not in support of promoting parental involvement or giving credit were credit is do. SF1364 authored by Sen. Berglin is an excellent example of the DFL party views on Minnesota family law reform. All middle class families with two or more children will see an increase in support. The increase occurs because of what Minnesota Department of Human Services claims it costs to raise children. They assume all the child-rearing expenses occur only in the custodial parent's home.

This type of DFL legislation does nothing to promote the involvement of both parents.

I ask that you redirect your focus/views before you loose more support from the working class citizens.

• Minnesota's BILLION DOLLAR divorce industry needs to under-go down sizing.

• Other states are boasting reductions in their divorce rates by enacting good family law legislation. Education, co-parenting and real costs shares in rearing of the children.

• President Clinton signed legislation called the "Fatherhood Initiative" Designed to educate the importance or parental involvement/support.

This is an excellent piece of legislation, unfortunately Minnesota is currently considering legislation that will still discourage or prevent parental involvement.

• One last example of what's wrong. Every one knows children benefit from the involvement of two cooperating parents. But yet when denied visitation occurs, there is not one DHS dollar spent to address/resolve the problem. "Maybe because There's no Federal "Bounty" money in it for DHS"?

I am always available to talk with or meet with anyone who wants to address the problems with MN family law and to find the solutions.

Thank you for your time,

Terry Nyblom 
Executive Board, 7 years Machinists Local 737, 
Union Steward, 12 years Polar Chevrolet, 
Family Law Activist, 6 years 
Vice President, 3 years R-KIDS of MN, 
Committed Dad of two children, 11 &14 years, 
Vadnais Heights Lions Club, 6 days, 
W. (651) 429-7791 ext. 478 
H. (651) 484-3295 

Billionaire’s ex-wife wants $320,000 a month in child support

Associated Press

Published Jan 14 2002

LOS ANGELES -- The ex-wife of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian is asking a court for the biggest child-support award ever in California - $320,000 a month - to care for their 3-year-old daughter. In court documents, Lisa Bonder Kerkorian lists monthly expenses for daughter Kira including: $144,000 for travel; $14,000 for parties and play dates; $7,000 for charity; $4,300 for food, plus $5,900 to eat out; $2,500 for movies, theaters and outings; $1,400 for laundry and cleaning; $1,000 for toys, videos and books; and $436 for care of Kira's bunny and other pets.

Lisa Kerkorian, a 36-year-old former tennis pro, said her 84-year-old ex-husband promised to take care of Kira's every need, according to a 33-page court declaration obtained by the Los Angeles Times. ``In all our discussions ... the word `needs' never meant basic needs, but what was required to maintain her in the station of life and with all the things and benefits befitting the daughter of Kirk Kerkorian, Lisa Kerkorian said in the court papers filed last week. Kerkorian, ranked by Forbes magazine as the world's 46th-richest person with an estimated $6.4 billion fortune, is a casino mogul, the majority shareholder of MGM Mirage Inc. and one of the largest shareholders of DaimlerChrysler.

The couple met in 1986 and became romantically involved after Lisa Kerkorian's first marriage broke up in 1991. Lisa Kerkorian said she pressed him to marry her, but he refused; she tried to leave in the summer of 1997 but soon found out she was pregnant, according to the court documents. Kerkorian agreed to marry Lisa in 1999 - five months after Kira was born - on the condition that his wife file for divorce a month later and that she waive her right to spousal support, the documents say. Kerkorian agreed to pay $50,000 a month in child support, and for a time upped that to $75,000 a month. But Lisa Kerkorian contends that is not enough for Kira, whose first birthday party cost $70,000 and who has flown more than 35 times on private jets. Kerkorian has remained silent on the case, but his lawyer, Dennis M. Wasser, calls Lisa Kerkorian's account ``fiction.

Suicide Teen Pilot was kept from Dad

Scripps Howard News Service

Published Jan 11 2002

MALDEN, MASS. -- Distraught that they could not get a license to marry, the young lovers decided they would die together. Julia Detore and Charles Bishara failed in their suicide pact but the son they ultimately produced would succeed in a suicide plan of his own -- nearly 18 years later. By crashing a stolen Cessna into Tampa's Bank of America Plaza building Jan. 5, Charles Bishop ended 15 years of near-constant movement with his mother, and most of a lifetime without contact with his father or his father's family. Beyond his mother and grandmother in Palm Harbor, his death also leaves forgotten relatives grieving in Massachusetts, angry that on the same day they finally found the child they called Chucky Jr., they lost him forever. "It's just a tragedy to find your grandson in this way," said Robert Bishara, whose son, Charles, had little contact with his son after Detore sought divorce, then moved from the small Boston-area town where they lived. "We lost someone we didn't even know," he said.

The former Julia Detore, who changed both her name and her son's from Bishara to Bishop, has declined requests for extensive interviews since her son's death. "I can't do it," she said. "I just lost my son a couple of days ago. There hasn't even been a service yet." Charles Bishara, thought to still live in the Boston area, could not be located. But details of his life can be found in police reports and microfilmed copies of the local newspaper, the Malden Evening News. Sometime before July 28, 1984, Bishara and Detore, who had been dating only a short time, according to his relatives, decided to get married. The couple drove to Rhode Island, where they planned to elope. But, for reasons not explained, the license was denied. She was just 17. He was 19. They returned to her home in Malden. There, according a newspaper story based on police reports, they became upset at the failure. They stuffed rags into the tailpipe of her car, hoping to fill the car with carbon monoxide and kill them both. When that failed, 'they agreed that she would stab Bishara with a 12-inch butcher knife and he would then slash her wrists with the same knife," according to the newspaper.

But the pain was more than Bishara bargained for. At 4 a.m., he asked her to call an ambulance. Paramedics found him on the sofa, bleeding heavily with a lacerated liver. When questioned, he denied that the pair was in a suicide pact, though she insisted that was the case. Detore was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to commit murder. She was ordered to undergo a 20-day evaluation at a state hospital in Waltham. Then, the case disappeared. No record exists in the District Court for Malden. Records in Malden are not computerized and it may have simply been lost, or ordered expunged by a judge. Charles Bishara's sister said that he refused to cooperate with prosecutors and that the case against Julia was dropped.

James Detore, the estranged father of Julia Bishop, said he did not want to talk about the events that led up to the 1984 suicide attempt. "I really don't want to go into that," he said in a telephone interview from his Pompano Beach home. "That's really old stuff. It wasn't pleasant for me, and I don't think she (Julia) would appreciate me talking about it." Attorney Pam Campbell, who is now representing Julia Bishop, said she was told that the court file in the case was sealed. "Basically it was a Romeo-and-Juliet type of suicide pact," Campbell said. "They were both very depressed. And they were very young."

Internet Visitation

Here is a link to a good review of the concept of Internet Visitation and cases applying the concept. http://www.famlawconsult.com/archive/reader200111.html

The Family Values War

Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) July 25, 1968. This encyclical letter concerns the Catholic Church’s position on the regulation of birth, and condemns use of contraceptive birth control. Humanae Vitae admonished world leaders, "(D)o not permit that by legal means practices contrary to the natural and divine law be introduced into that fundamental cell, the family."

Throughout the West, rulers and legislative bodies largely ignored the pope’s advice. After more than four decades since the introduction of the pill, sociologists have had opportunity to determine the social consequences of the introduction of the pill and other convenient contraceptive devices. Family structure has weakened, marriage is generally in decline, and divorce is up, not only in the United States, but also throughout Western countries that sanctioned the use of artificial contraceptives.

Long before I became aware of Humanae Vitae, and even before I entered the Catholic Church, I pondered the consequences to society resulting from the introduction and spread of artificial contraception. The conclusion I reached caused me the greatest fear I have ever known, although I have feared death on at least three occasions. On August 11, 1994, I testified before the Minnesota Legislative Commission for Children, Youth and Their Families to share my thoughts on the consequences of the spread of birth control.

In my testimony, I linked contraception with the declined of marriage, and indicated that society could expect that children raised in single-parent households would be significantly disadvantaged when compared to children raised in conventional, two-parent homes. Moreover, I testified that as the proportion of children raised in single-parent households increased, social dysfunction would likewise increase.

I had not merely identified the pill as the cause of family breakdown, but had specifically identified the three US Supreme Court cases that had made the introduction and spread of artificial contraception legal in this country. Months after I gave my testimony, I found that Charles Darwin had feared that contraceptive technology would spread to unmarried women, which would destroy the chastity upon which the family is bonded. He further predicted that the destruction of family bonds would result in the "greatest of all possible evils to mankind." The source where I found Darwin’s quotation had not been published at the time of my testimony.

That both Darwin and I reached the same fatalistic conclusion concerning the outcomes resulting from the proliferation of contraception left me confident that policymakers and the legislators of the commission would take my testimony seriously. However, the opposite occurred. For example, my testimony attempted to link the introduction of contraception to changes in family structure and the advent of no-fault divorce. In the summary of my testimony, the commission indicated that I had objected to something referred to as "no-fault marriage." If such a thing as "no-fault marriage" exists, I had not been made aware of it until the reference by the commission.

I found that the frivolous attitude exhibited by the commission is not merely limited to legislators. Hennepin County Family Court Services referred to Darwin’s prediction as "Darwin’s Great Evil." Through a challenge to no-fault divorce made under the Preamble to the Constitution, I found that I was not entitled to an answer either at trial or upon appeal. The trial court specifically declined to answer the question presented, but decreed that the matter had been recognized by the court for future appeal. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals indicated that the issue did not appear to have been raised at trial, and it declined to address the issue.

Although I have never abused my only child and the only abuse alleged against me by the child’s mother involved her spurious claim that I had once called her "fat," the court, referring to the conclusions reached by Hennepin County Family Services, ordered that the best interests of my son be served by eliminating any authority I have to affect his interests and to effectively prevent me from having any personal interaction with him. As a result, I have neither spoken to nor seen my son for nearly three years.

At the time I testified before the commission, the Minnesota Department of Human Services employed me in Children’s Mental Health. Some time after I testified, I attended a conference where a child psychologist appeared. During the conference, the psychologist described a clinical experience where he had been called to treat a boy who had begun displaying behavioral disturbances after his parents divorced. Upon the completion of his remarks, I asked him whether, considering the divorce rate in the United States, the circumstances he had just described might be replicated elsewhere in this country. He responded, "You’re exactly right. This is a values issue."

Shortly after the conference, I was told that as a condition of my employment, I could never again address the known relationship between children’s mental health and family structure. I responded by saying that to deny such a relationship would be contrary to the Children’s Mental Health Team’s statutory mission as detailed in the Minnesota Family Preservation Act and violated my First Amendment privileges.

I was fired.

Predictably, a court action ensued. In dismissing the case, the court indicated that I wrote a note at the conference that attempted to solicit support for my personal notion that divorce was harmful to children. Although courts typically require the physical presence of writings before determining their contents, the note, which was written on the back of an envelope, was not considered by the court at the time it dismissed the case. A number of months following the court’s dismissal, the note was located.

The actual note regarded a solution offered by the psychologist to a situation in which a fatherless boy’s uncle was paid by the state to attend periodic walks with the boy. The note actually states the following, with my writing appearing first, emboldened:

"Another example of social cost for surrogate parenthood

payment for brother to take child for walk Þ (the psychologist) said that mother indicated this was only person child respected"

"Yes, but there is social cost if we don’t do this also (& probably more cost)!"

"Best to realize lowest cost & greatest benefit to child is to have a dad."

"OK, let’s buy him one."

Having witnessed the terrible ethical shortcomings of those who represent themselves to be objective experts on matters concerning the family, I have returned to the church. It remains to be seen whether those same purported family authorities will abide by the rules they make for themselves.

Copyright by Rodney Johari, 2001

All rights reserved

Fragile Families, Welfare Reform, and Marriage

http://www.brookings.edu/es/wrb/publications/pb/pb10.htm

Brookings Institution: Welfare Reform & Beyond December 2001

Fragile Families, Welfare Reform, and Marriage

WR&B Brief #10 - December 2001 Sara McLanahan, Irwin Garfinkel, and Ronald B. Mincy

Download the entire Policy Brief (PDF-305 kb).

[Sidebar: Marriage will be an important issue in the upcoming debate over the reauthorization of welfare reform. According to recent studies, both children and adults benefit from marriage. Still, one of three children in the U.S. is born to unmarried parents. At the time of birth, most unmarried parents are committed to each other and to their child and have high hopes of marriage and a future together. But these parents face numerous barriers to creating and maintaining a stable family life, including low education and job skills, lack of jobs, and poor relationship skills. Helping these parents achieve their goal of stability will require new ideas and new policies such as providing services that start at birth; treating the parents as a couple rather than as individuals; offering services that promote communication and increase employability; reducing marriage penalties; and making child support enforcement more reasonable for low-income fathers. While some of these ideas have been tried in the past, others have never been fully implemented, and none has been offered as a single, comprehensive package. Because Congress is unlikely to enact a full package of services, the federal government should consider funding state-run demonstrations to ascertain the benefits and costs of the proposed reforms.]

Promoting marriage and two-parent families is of great importance to policymakers. The benefits of marriage for adults (better health, greater longevity, and higher earnings) have been well documented, and the benefits of growing up with two biological parents (more education, greater marital stability, and better mental health) are widely acknowledged. Moreover, Congress and the Bush administration seem determined to make marriage a major issue in the welfare reform reauthorization debate.

Welfare rolls have dropped dramatically since 1996, and large proportions of welfare recipients have moved from dependency to work. At the same time, the proportion of births to unmarried mothers, after several decades of relentless increases, has remained constant at around 33 percent. In response, some policymakers have argued that more dollars from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) should be spent on programs for poor parents who marry. Others have argued that, rather than promoting marriage, TANF money should go towards making poor parents, especially fathers, more "marriageable" or better able to support themselves and their families.

This policy brief will assess "marriage" and "marriageability" strategies and discuss policies to promote both. Strategies for increasing father involvement and improving communication among parents who live apart will also be considered. Most of the analysis is based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study being conducted at the Center for Research on Child Wellbeing at Princeton University and the Social Indicators Survey Center at Columbia University. The study is following a birth cohort of approximately 5,000 children born to unwed parents in large cities (populations of 200,000 or more) at the turn of the 21st century. Based on interviews with mothers and fathers, the four-year study provides extensive information about parents' relationships, views on marriage, intentions to marry, and expectations about the role of unmarried fathers.

Unwed Parents: What We Know

One of the most striking findings from the Fragile Families Study thus far is the high rate of cohabitation among unmarried parents. At the time of birth, half of unmarried mothers are living with the fathers of their children. Another third are romantically involved with the fathers, but living apart in what are called "visiting relationships." Eight percent of parents are "just friends" and 9 percent have "little or no contact."

The majority of unwed parents are optimistic about their future together. Nearly three quarters of the mothers believe their chances of marrying the father of their child are "50-50" or better. Almost two thirds "agree" or "strongly agree" with the statement, "it is better for children if their parents are married." There is also strong consensus among unmarried parents about what qualities are necessary for successful marriage. Roughly 90 percent of mothers rate "husband having a steady job" and "emotional maturity" as very important qualities for a successful marriage. In addition, 69 percent of mothers rate "wife having a steady job" as very important.

Most fathers are highly involved during the pregnancy and around the time of birth. According to the mothers surveyed, four out of five fathers provided some financial support during the pregnancy, 84 percent will have their name on the birth certificate, and 79 percent of the children will take the father's surname. Most fathers say they want to help raise their child, and the overwhelming majority of mothers say they want the fathers to be involved.

At the time their child is born, the vast majority of unmarried parents are committed to each other and to their child. Most mothers and fathers have high hopes about their future together and most view marriage as a positive institution that benefits children. Clearly, these parents are likely to respond positively to programs and policies that promote marriage, which is good news for policymakers who favor this strategy.

Unfortunately, many unmarried parents are poorly equipped to support themselves and their children. Table 1 shows that although nearly all the fathers in the Fragile Families Study worked in the past year, almost three out of ten were out of work in the week before their baby was born. In addition, the human capital of both parents is low: 37 percent of mothers and 34 percent of fathers lack a high school degree, and less than a third of parents have any education beyond high school. These findings are consistent with those in the 1995 Report to Congress on Non-Marital Childbearing by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and with other research on unwed parents and non-custodial fathers. Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., for example, finds that poverty rates among non-custodial fathers may be as high as 25 percent, and Irwin Garfinkel and his colleagues at Columbia University report that 20 percent of non-custodial fathers earn less than $6,000 annually. Studies of teen parents and mothers on welfare paint an even bleaker picture of the capabilities of unwed parents.

The Fragile Families Study also shows that although a majority of unmarried parents are in fairly good health, some engage in "unhealthy" behaviors. Three percent of mothers and 5 percent of fathers report that a drug or alcohol problem interfered with their work or personal relationships in the past year. Drug and alcohol problems are likely to be underreported, so we should assume that the true prevalence of substance abuse is higher. Approximately 38 percent of unwed fathers have been incarcerated, which suggests that a substantial proportion of these men have had lifestyles that are potentially harmful to their children. As shown by Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox in their recent review, evaluations of the Parents' Fair Share program, a large scale demonstration program that provided services to unwed fathers, found that non-custodial fathers who were delinquent in their child support payments faced severe employment barriers, including criminal records and poor health.

Many policymakers and advocates worry that promoting marriage will increase domestic violence. The Fragile Families Study data suggest that violence is rare among new unwed parents. Only 4 percent of mothers and 14 percent of fathers report being hit or slapped by their partner during the past year. While these figures are reassuring, they should be viewed with caution. Mothers are likely to underreport the incidence of violence, especially if they are still romantically involved with the fathers. Indeed, reported rates of violence are much higher among mothers who are no longer in contact with the father of their child.

Finally, 11 percent of mothers and 7 percent of fathers report that the other parent is "never fair or willing to compromise." At worst, such behavior may be a precursor to physical violence. At best, it signals a relationship in trouble.

Estimates based on preliminary data from twenty cities in the Fragile Families Study indicate that less than 20 percent of the new parents had married by the time their child was 12-18 months old. Table 2 shows that of the parents who were living together at birth, 12 percent had married and an additional 63 percent were still cohabiting. Thus, 75 percent of the children who were living with both biological parents at birth were still living with both parents nearly a year and a half later. Research based on the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth suggests that about half of unmarried parents who are cohabiting at birth are still living together after six years.

The findings discussed above underscore the precarious socioeconomic circumstances of unwed parents and the barriers to marriage that many of them face. They also support the argument that a substantial proportion of unwed parents are not ready for marriage because of low employment skills, risky behavior such as drug use, and poor relationship skills (defined as the ability to maintain a nonviolent, mutually supportive relationship).

Policy Implications

Marriage and cohabitation among fragile families can be encouraged by increasing the capabilities of parents, reducing marriage and cohabitation penalties in current spending programs and tax policies, and making child support enforcement more suitable to the circumstances of unmarried parents who live together. No matter how successful such policies are, however, a substantial proportion of unwed parents will live apart. The dilemma for policymakers is how to address the needs of these parents and their children without undermining marriage. Based on the findings in the Fragile Families Study and broader research on the effects of public policy on families, a reform agenda for promoting marriage, marriageability, father involvement, and the security of single-parent families should be considered as part of the welfare reform reauthorization debate.

Services: Services to strengthen fragile families should begin before or at birth when the overwhelming majority of unwed parents are still romantically involved and should offer services to mothers and fathers. The "magic moment" of birth may be particularly important for motivating fathers. The Parents' Fair Share program, which had limited success with fathers, provided help too late-long after the romantic relationship between the mother and father had ended.

A promising model to build on is the home visiting nurse program pioneered in Elmira, New York, and Memphis, Tennessee, by David Olds and his colleagues at the University of Colorado in Denver. In the Olds program, now being implemented statewide in Oklahoma and at over 200 sites in 23 other states, nurses visit first-time mothers during pregnancy and for two years following birth. This program could be extended to include fathers as well as mothers and assessment of both parents on education, employment status, health and mental health issues (including substance abuse problems), and relationship problems (including domestic violence). When a problem is indicated, one or both parents would be offered appropriate help. In addition, the visiting nurses would inform parents of the other supports and services for which they are eligible, including health care, welfare, child support enforcement, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and child care programs.

TANF Reforms: Services alone are unlikely to substantially strengthen fragile families. To the extent that welfare policies or practices favor one-parent families over two-parent families, they discourage marriage and cohabitation and push biological fathers out of the picture. Although many state TANF programs appear to have reduced or eliminated restrictions for two-parent families, others still retain such restrictions. Similarly, many states and localities give preference to one-parent families in allocating scarce child care and housing subsidies. If the goal is to promote marriage and family stability, states should eliminate this kind of unfavorable treatment of two-parent families.

The absence of categorical restrictions, however, is still not sufficient to make welfare policy neutral with respect to family formation. Because welfare is income tested, it creates an incentive for fathers with earnings and mothers without earnings to live apart (or feign living apart). To reduce this disincentive, only a portion of a resident father's earnings-say 50 percent-should be counted when determining a family's eligibility and benefits for TANF. Although doing so will increase welfare costs and caseloads in the short run, the time limits and work requirements of the new TANF program would limit these extra costs, and the long-term gains in strengthening two-parent families will be considerable for families as well as society.

Child Support Reforms: Strict child support enforcement also reduces the disincentives to marriage and cohabitation in welfare policy by increasing the costs (for fathers) of living separately. However, if child support obligations are imposed on cohabiting fathers or are grossly inconsistent with their ability to pay, they may drive fathers away and discourage their involvement. If the parents reside together, they should be treated as a family by TANF, only a portion of the income of each parent should be counted in determining eligibility and benefits, and services should be provided to fathers as well as mothers.

Services for fathers, like those for mothers in TANF, should be geared primarily towards obtaining employment. In cases in which either the mother or father demonstrates the potential to benefit from further education and training, however, TANF should provide such support. Services for both mothers and fathers should also be directed at educating the parents about their mutual rights and responsibilities, including establishing the paternity of the father.

All unwed fathers, including those who live with the mother and child, should be required to establish paternity. Those who live with the mother, however, should not be required to pay child support. Both parents should be fully informed of the nonresident parent's potential child support obligation in the event of a separation.

If the parents live apart, fathers should be required to pay child support, and enforcement should be strict. But the amount of the obligation should be proportional to fathers' ability to pay. Poor fathers are routinely required to pay much higher proportions of their income than middle- and upper-income fathers, and many are required to pay unreasonable amounts of arrearages (past-due child support). These unrealistic arrearages arise because child support agencies and courts base these payments not on fathers' actual earnings, but on their "presumptive" earnings; e.g., the minimum wage multiplied by full-time, full-year work or, if he is unemployed, how much he earned at some point in the past. Fathers are even required to pay back the mother's welfare costs and, in some states, her Medicaid costs. Many fathers who become unemployed or incarcerated build up huge arrearages during these periods of unemployment. Such onerous child support obligations are rarely paid in full, and they can prompt fathers to avoid legitimate work where their wages are easily intercepted. Ultimately, they breed resentment among fathers and mothers toward the system and perhaps toward each other. Imprisonment for non-payment of support exacerbates this negative dynamic. Given what we know about the low earnings capacity of most unwed fathers, these practices are not likely to be effective and may even have unintended negative consequences.

If child support obligations were expressed as a flat percentage of the father's income in every state, many of these problems would be reduced. Obligations would automatically decline when the father is unemployed or in jail and would automatically go up when his earnings rise.

Judi Bartfeld and Irwin Garfinkel of Columbia University find that support orders expressed as a percentage of income lead to substantially higher, not lower payments. States should reconsider their guidelines so that the child support obligations imposed on low-income, nonresident fathers can be no higher in percentage terms than those imposed on middle-income, nonresident fathers. Finally, through TANF or other workforce programs, unemployed fathers should be offered a job at the minimum wage and be required to pay a portion of their earnings in child support.

Most states now reduce TANF benefits by one dollar for each dollar of child support paid. This policy reduces the incentive for mothers to cooperate with the child support program and for fathers to pay child support. Counting only a portion of support in determining eligibility and benefits would increase cooperation and payments as well as the child's standard of living. Congress should require or encourage states to ignore a substantial portion-say 50 percent-of child support payments in determining TANF eligibility and payments.

Finally, creating a publicly-financed child support benefit that is conditional on the prior establishment of a child support order and tied to fathers' payments would have positive effects on both mothers and fathers. Although a public child support benefit would also increase government expenditures and parents' incentives for living apart, it would nonetheless reduce the poverty, insecurity, and welfare dependence of single mothers and their children.

Policy Experiments: Congress is not likely to enact all of the changes discussed in this brief, but could provide federal funding for state-run experiments to help ascertain the full costs and benefits of these and similar reforms. Such experiments will have to be carefully designed and monitored, and they will be costly if they are to yield useful information. Participants would be randomly assigned to a control group or to experimental groups that receive one or more of the new policies outlined above. Multiple treatments would be necessary to disentangle the effects of different components of the reform package, and the experiment should last at least five years or it will fail to mimic permanent changes in policy. Both mothers and fathers would have to be interviewed periodically in order to assess the effects.

Based on the costs of previous large-scale social science experiments, we estimate that the costs of the experiment would be at least several hundred million dollars. While such an experiment is costly, it is cheap compared to the full fiscal costs of implementing all of the recommendations and will allow policymakers and social scientists to determine whether the benefits it produces warrant an expanded slate of reforms.

Additional Reading

Bartfeld, Judi, and Irwin Garfinkel. 1996. "The Impact of Percentage-Expressed Child-Support Orders on Payments." Journal of Human Resources, 31(4): 794-815.

Garfinkel, Irwin, and others. 1998. Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement. New York: Russell Sage.

Lerman, Robert, and Elaine Sorensen. 2000. "Father Involvement with their Nonmarital Children: Patterns, Determinants, and Effects on their Earnings." Marriage and Family Review, 29(2): 137-158.

McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. 1994. "Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps." Cambridge: Harvard.

Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox. 2001. "The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support their Children: Final Lessons from Parents' Fair Share." New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Olds, David L., and others. 1997. "Long-term Effects of Home Visitation on Maternal Life Course and Child Abuse and Neglect." Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(8): 637-643.

Sorensen, Elaine, and Chava Zibman. 2001. "Poor Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support: Deadbeats or Disadvantaged?" Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1995. "Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing." Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics.

Waite, Linda J. 1995. "Does Marriage Matter?" Demography 32(4): 483-507.

Irwin Garfinkel is the Mitchell I. Ginsberg professor of contemporary urban problems at the Columbia University School of Social Work.

Sara McLanahan is the director of the Center for Research on Child Wellbeing and a professor of sociology and political affairs at Princeton University.

Ronald B. Mincy is the Maurice V. Russell professor of social policy and social work practice at the Columbia University School of Social Work.

E-mail: brookinfo@brook.edu WR&B Fact Book: http://www.brookings.edu/wrb/resources/facts/fact_book/fact_book.htm 
Brookings WR&B Home: http://www.brookings.edu/wrb/wrb_hp.htm 
Brookings Institution Home: http://www.brookings.edu/ 

Related website:

CLASP -- What If All the Money Came Home http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/pilr2300.htm by Vicki Turetsky -- June 2000

Topics Include [online links]:

Child Support Distribution Rules Emphasize Welfare Cost Recovery 
Child Support Makes a Difference to Low-Income Families 
Distribution Policies Work Against Poor Fathers and Mothers 
Helping Families Make the Transition Off of TANF 
The Cost Recovery Role of the Child Support Program is Obsolete 
Treating Child Support as Support for Children 
Conclusion 

Copyright © 1998-2000 by Center for Law and Social Policy, Inc. CLASP Home: http://www.clasp.org/

ABOUT R-KIDS OF MINNESOTA

• R-KIDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating law makers, family law professionals and the public with regard to family law and social services and their effects on children, families, and the consequences to the taxpayer.
• Our main concern is for our community of children of divorced, separated, or unwed families. We believe that children need, want and deserve the love, support and involvement of both parents regardless of marital status.
• Founded in 1985, our membership is comprised of both moms and dads, custodial and non-custodial parents, grandparents, stepparents, and professionals such as social workers, doctors, attorneys, and family law practitioners.
• It is the objective of R-KIDS to develop equitable family law legislation in an effort to improve the lives of all Minnesota children.

"ALL CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS AND ALL GRANDPARENTS IN THEIR LIVES"

• Unless those affected by the current family law system voice an opinion and demand positive change, we and our children will continue to suffer. This change will not occur without your help! Legislators and family law professionals need to hear from; parents, grandparents, and constituents. Until they do, things will not change.

R-KIDS CONCERNS AND ISSUES

1. The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.
2. The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.
3. Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.
4. Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.
5. The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.
6. Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well.
7. The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.
8. Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.
9. Accountability for the use of child support.
10. The impact of the no-fault divorce system on families with children and the need for effective education for parents considering marriage, separation, or divorce.

R-KIDS website is http://www.rkids.org

Do you want to express your viewpoint or share your story in the newsletter? E-mail to ttheisen@bitstream.net, or mail to Tim Theisen, R-KIDS Newsletter Editor, 229 Jackson Street, Suite 105, , Anoka MN 55303. We reserve the right to edit. We will use your name unless asked not to do so. Obviously, viewpoints expressed by readers do not necessarily reflect the position of R-KIDS.

Give to RKIDS Charitable Fund

R-KIDS Charitable fund is a tax exempt, 501(c )(3) foundation. The proceeds WILL NOT BE USED FOR LOBBYING. The fund currently needs money for various charitable activities of benefit to children of divorce. Send your tax deductible donation of $25, $50, or $100 today! Make checks payable to R-KIDS Charitable Fund. Mail to R-KIDS PO Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424.

This newsletter is distributed via US mail and e-mail. If you are getting it via regular mail, but you have an e-mail address, let us know your e-mail address. Send a note to Editor Tim Theisen, ttheisen@bitstream.net . Not only will you get the newsletter a couple weeks sooner, but you’ll also get certain bulletins between newsletters, and you’ll save us postage costs as well! Also, the e-mail version of the newsletter sometimes has extra articles that didn’t make the editor’s final cut for the print version.

The R-KIDS newsletter does not purport to give legal advice. The information contained herein is general in nature; individual circumstances will always vary.

Feel free to disseminate this newsletter. We want to spread our message!